Bush is soon going to declare a policy change in Iraq. His plan is to send more troops there as a last attempt to stabilize the heart of Iraq. The issue in this research paper will be: Should the US do one last "Big Push" in Iraq and send in an additional 20000 to 40000 troops in an attempt to win the war or should Bush make a fixed plan to slowly pull out the troops?
George w. Bush, president of the United States , is discussing a boost of military troops in Iraq with his advisers. He will most likely announce his plan within the first half of January.
The size of the eventual troop increase is remaining uncertain. It have been speculation in everything from a temporary '"surge" of 20000 troops to what is called the "big push plan "involving more than 13 additional brigades. There are about 3500 to 4000 troops in one brigade. The additional troops will be split between Bagdad and Anbar with the main focus on Bagdad and a smaller amount troops in Anbar. President Bush strongly believes that this will help the US win back control over bagdad and the Anbar province. To achieve this major increase increase in troops, it is written in the AEI-report that the tours of the troops already serving in Iraq now must be extended by several months and other troops must be sent back earlier then they were due to deploy. The AEI - or the American Enterprise Institute wrote a plan called "Choosing Victory". It put down details in how the war in Iraq could be won by sending additional troops in the combat zone. The AEI exists of 21 scholars and retired officers, and the type of plan they wrote seem to be the type of plan Bush favors.
Most people I have had the chance to talk to strongly oppose the plan to increase the military troops in Iraq. They think, as the majority of other Americans, that the war in Iraq has been going on for far too long and they are impatient for it to end and the American troops to withdrawal. My friend from Norway believes that "seeing that what bush said in the beginning of the Iraqi war, was that his goal was to make iraq a country of freedom and free of Saddam Husseins dictatorship. Why then send even more soldiers to kill more people, we know that it would be more killings from the American side. Saddam is captured and executed. It isn't Bush that has the governing control over iraq anymore, now it is the oil he is after. Even though he doesn't admits it we all know that it is the oil which is the main focus in this war in Bush's eyes. Iraq has a president which is governing the country that is something bush should respect because he is the one who put him there. Bush shouldn't take the risk and pick a even bigger fight with the islamicextremist seeing that he now has to consider the domestic problems back home. He has to think of the people in New Orleans which died and survived. He sent food packages to soldiers in Iraq but not starving survivors in New Orleans which is starving after hurricane Katrina. Bush has to win the people over in his own country and not the soldiers in Iraq." In a poll presented by the Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg only 12% f the citizens of the United states support sending a large amount of additional troops to Iraq. 52% of the Americans, according to the poll, will prefer to see a fixed timetable for withdrawal.
All parts agree on one thing . The strategy used in Iraq now are failing. You will find the disagreement in finding the out what should be done in the next step towards winning the war. As the situation is now the war is not going anywhere, to put it in member of the council on Foreign Relations Stephen Briddles words, " To squander lives in a long drown down simply to put a fig leaf over defeat is unsustainable.
President Bush have also earlier tried to send a big amount of troops in to Iraq at once. Last summer, 12000 additional troops was sent to Bagdad to quell violence. A few moths later the U.S military said that the operation had not met...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document